The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-27
THE STANDARD OIL co.
Examination Before the Inter
State Commission.
J.B RoCKAFBLLAR BsTIFIHs
China and Japsn-Hs Wasn't Respon-
sible Samoan Anairs-Bismarck
Asd-Gensral Notes.
The standard on Case

WAsHIEaToN, November Is. j. D.
Rockefeller, chairman of the Standard
Oil Trust. was sworn and examined be-
fore the Interstate Commerce Com
mission this morning in connection
with the Standard Oil cases. Council
for complainant asked witaess to pro-
duce paper VII ich he had in his hand
giving list of stocks of various COM
papies held in trust. Immediately
counsel for the Standard Oil Trust and
for several of the defendant railroads
interposed objections, the former on
the ground that the Standard Oil Trust
was not party to the case and that the
production of the paper would be an
unnecessary and irrelevant disclosure
of witness private affairs. The railroad
attorneys argued against encumbering
the record with matters not already
brought into this case, insisting that
nothing in the list in question except
the Standard Oil Company of Ohio and
Waters-Piercs Company of st. Louis
was relevant to this case. Various
other minor points of objec-
urged vigorously though briefly.
Counsel for complainant said that the
railroad witnesses had disclosed the
names of a number of consignors and
consignees, who had received rates and
enjoyed privileges Ike those alleged to
have been accorded to the Standard Oil
Company alone, and it was desirable to
disclose by the testimony of witness
whether or not these independent con-
IL 60 T..
part of the Standard Oil Trust.
The commission retired 70 take the
subject into consideration, and upon its
return, fifteen minutes later, the chair
man said: 1.-THE commission is OF the
opinion that it is competent to show
by this witness or any other
whether the stocks of the Standard OIL
Company OF Kentucky, or the Standard
Oil Com pany of Ohio, or the Waters
Pierce Company OF st. Louis, or any
other company or any person that has
been connected by evidence with ship
ments over these roads during the
period of the controversy are held by
this oil trust, that has been spoken of,
and also to show whether any of the
persons who appear in this case, either
rs shippers or consignees. are in any
way connected with this oil trust. or
under it's control. It is also OF the
opinion that if it should appear from
the evidence that the stock of either of
these companies, any one of them,
Is held by this oil trust,
1t will then be competent to
go further and show in gen
eral terms what the extent OF the
capita is, that is controlled by this oil
trust, and what is the extent of the
business that is controlled oy it, for the
purpose OF putting before the commits
sion the extent of the operations of this
trust. That is as far as We are st pres
emit advised this commission can go in
its ruling"
The objection to the admission of the
list itself having thus been sustained.
COUNSEL for the complainant proceeded
70 question witness, within the rulings
of the commission, Witness stated
In reply to d series of inquiries
that the stock of the Standard OH Com
p6ny of. Ohio, the Standard Company
of Kentucky, the Camden Consolidated
Oil Company of Parkersburg, W. Va,
the Waters Pierce Oil Company Of St.
Louis and the Consolidated Tank Line
Company of Cincinnati, was held by
the Standard Trust. Several companies
were mentioned by counsel for com
plainsnt, but were objected to and ex-
cluded on the ground that these CON-
panies had not been brought into the
ease in previously given evidence.
Witness said, in substance, that the
stock Of these companies was received
from the owners, and the certificates of
the trust issued In exchange; that the
profits OF the several companies were not
divided among the stockholders, but
was paid into the trust, and then di-
vided among the holders of the trust
certificates; also that the aggregate of
outstanding certificates was about
800, coo 900. Complain ants counsel pro-
posed to show that the actual value of
the trust certificates was much greater.
but this was excluded. Witness stated
that between rs and 80 per cent. of the
oil refining business of the country was
done by his company, but he subse-
Quently changed this estimate to 60
per cent. The trust certificates were
keld In all parts of the country.
In cross. examination, witness said
the trust had nothing whatever to do
with the making of rates, all that being
done by the subordinate companies.
George Rice, the complainant; was
sworn and examined. He submitted a
number of papers, bearing upon all the
economic features of the oil business,
and produced mass of correspondence
which was submitted in evidence, so far
IS it might prove competent. BE was
examined and crosS-examined at con-
siderable length, but beyond the state
ment that his profits were about IA
Csnts Il barrel on oil delivered at his
works in 0hiS, and the further state
ment in contradiction to that of most of
the railroad men, that the ccnsignor
and consignee usually load and unload
barreled oil at their own expense, his
testimony up to recess covered familiar
ground.